Neelam Shankaraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Chiluveru Suman, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged about 37^years, Occ. Business, Rio. H.No.241, Near Gopalapuram, Ponagundla Village, Regonda Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned notice dated 20.12.2025 issued by the 4th respondent to the petitioners for removal of the construction of the petitioners in respect of the land in Sy.No.4A admeasuring Ac.0.16 gts situated at

¶20

chinnagudur Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District, as illegal, arbitrary, null and void and unjust and against the purport of U/s.114(3) of relangana panchayat Raj Act, 2018 and consequenfly to set aside the impugned notice dated 20.12.2025 o;'the 4th respondent.

¶21

lA NO: I 2025

¶22

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the irnpugned notice dated 20.12.202s of the 4th respondent, pending finalization of tre Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for th,e Petitioner: SRI JALLT KANAKAIAH REPRESENTING FOR SRI NARENDAR JALLI

¶24

Counsel for thrlRespondents No.1 & 2: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL OEVELOPMENT

¶25

Counsel for the, Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRt K. PRADEEP REDDY, S.C. FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRt c. RAVI CHANDRA SHEKAR

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO.39605 OF 2025

¶31

DATED | 24.12.2025

¶32

Between

¶33

Neelam Shankaraiah and another.

¶34

Petitioners

¶35

AND

¶36

The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others

¶37

Respondents

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the notice dated 20.12.2025

¶40

issued by respondent No.4 to the petitioner for removal of the construction in respect of the petitioners' land admeasuring Ac.0.l6 gts ln Sy.No.4A, situated at Chinnagudur Village and Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶41

Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, leamed counsel representing learned

¶42

counsel for the petitioners, learned Govemment pleader for panchayat Rajz and Rural Development, appearing for respondents No.l & 2,

¶43

w.P. No.39605 of 2025 7

¶44

Sri K. Pradeep^{Reddy, learned Standing Counselfor Gram Panchayat} appearinl; for respondents^{No.3 & 4 and Sri G. Ravi Chandra Shekar,} learned c,lunsel for respondent^No.5.

¶45

It is stated that^{pursuant to the directions of this Court in} W.P.No.33529 of^{2025 dated 10.1 1.2025, respondentNo.4 has issued} the impugned notice;^{however, and thereis no time mentionedin the} said notic,: for submission^{of explanation.}

¶46

Learned Senior Counsel^{appearing for the petitionerssubmitted} that the petitioners^{have submittedonline application for construction} permission and since the^{permissionwas neither deniednor rejected,} they have proceeded^{with the construction under deemedpermission.It} is furthel submitted that the^{petitioners have made several} represental ions, including^{issuanceof legal notice dated14.08-2023, on} the earlier occasions to^{respondentNo.4, but the same werenot} responded to, except for^{unofficial respondent No'5 filing} W.P.No.33529^{of 2025.}

¶47

Leanred counsel appearing^{for respondentNo.5submitted that the} petitioners had no^{permissionto makeconstructionand therefore'}

¶48

W.P. No.39605 of 2025

¶49

3

¶50

n I 1,.

¶51

respondent No.5 approached this Court and this Court had directed the respondents to take action in accordance with law

¶52

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the impugned notice dated 20.12.2025 is only a notice calling for an explanation and does not refer to any final action to be taken by the authorities. Since no time has been specified in the said notice for submission of an explanation, the petitioners are permitted to submit their representation/explanation to the official respondents within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such a representation, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and till such time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the property of the writ petitioners

¶53

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶54

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶55

SD/.P. PONNA^KRISHNA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR 6

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To

1 The Principal Secretary,^Panchayat f,aj^{and Rural DevelopmentDept', State} of ietangana, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶60

2 The District Panchayat^{Officer, MahabubabadDistrict.}

¶61

\

¶62

3. 4.	ThetVlandal^{ParishadDevelopmentofficer,chinnagudurMandal'} Mahabubabad^District. ThePanchayat^{Secretary,ChinnaguduruGramPanchayat'Chinnagudur} Village and^{Mandal, Mahabubabadulstrlcl}
5. 6. 7. 8. I	OneCC^{to SRI NARENDAR JALLI, Advocate [OPUC]} TwoCCstoGP^{forPanchayatRajandRuralDevelopment'HighCourt for the} StateofTelangana^{atHyderabadloull} OneCC^{to SRIK.PRADEEP REDDY,S'C'for Gram Panchayat [OPUC]} .One CCtoSRIG.^{RAVI CHANDRA SHEKAR' Advocate IOPUC]}
9.	TwoCD^CoPies
MP BS